An American Flag at Davis Wade Stadium in Starkville, Miss., on Sept. 1, 2018. (Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images) Censorship & Socialism

By Petr Svab March 9, 2021 Updated: March 11, 2021

News Analysis

While many Americans worry about ever-increasing censorship, those responsible for it have managed to amplify its effects by creating a climate of self-censorship.

Due to the psychological mechanisms of self-censorship, a single account blocked, a single video deleted, or a book banned can result in a broad chilling of speech. Important policy debates don’t occur, news story ideas aren’t pitched to editors, and books aren’t accepted for publishing, or written to begin with.

In some cases, it appears the censors employ the psychological tricks on purpose, achieving maximum suppression with minimal responsibility. These methods aren’t new—in fact, they have long been employed by totalitarian regimes.

The principle of self-censorship is that people, just to be on the safe side, refrain from saying even things that aren’t outright banned by some applicable rules.

An example is the effect of the Johnson Amendment, a law that prohibits tax-exempt nonprofits, including religious organizations, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Even though the law doesn’t prohibit discussion of political topics and stands virtually unenforced, opponents have long argued that pastors have avoided political topics in their sermons just to be sure they can’t be accused of running afoul of the law.

Here are a number of methods used to enhance self-censorship.

Vague Rules

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the world’s most notorious censor of free speech, has for decades used the method of making its policies intentionally vague. During its past political campaigns, for example, the central leadership would issue a decree that “rightists” and “counterrevolutionaries” were to be punished. The next lower rung of Party officials wouldn’t be told what exactly makes one a “rightist” or a “counterrevolutionary” and perhaps not even what the punishment should be. No official, however, would want to be seen as too lenient—that would carry the risk of being labeled oneself. As such, each successive level of bureaucracy would intensify its interpretation of the policy, leading to ever more extreme results. In some periods, the hysteria went far beyond self-censorship, as even refraining from political speech wasn’t enough.

“During the Cultural Revolution, … people couldn’t buy food in canteens if they didn’t recite a quotation or make a greeting to Mao [Zedong]. When shopping, riding the bus, or even making a phone call, one had to recite one of Mao’s quotations, even if it was totally irrelevant. In these rituals of worship, people were either fanatical or cynical,” the “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party” states.

In contemporary China, dissidents are often targeted for “subverting the state” or “spreading rumors.” The regime has proven that virtually any political statement can be subsumed under one of these charges.

The method appears to now be in play in contemporary America.

Amazon recently updated its policies to ban books that contain “hate speech,” without explaining what it considers as such. Since Amazon controls more than 80 percent of the book retail market, publishers are left to guess whether a book may get the “hate speech” label and thus be much less profitable to publish.

Roger Kimball, the publisher of Encounter Books and an Epoch Times contributor, said he so far hasn’t considered avoiding titles that may be targeted by Amazon, but he called it “a very worrisome harbinger.”

“It is possible that other publishers will do that,” he told The Epoch Times. “Certainly, I think that the atmosphere for opinion is much narrower now than it was in the past.”

He gave the example of Simon & Schuster, a publishing powerhouse that recently canceled its publishing of the book of Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) due to Hawley’s questioning the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.

If publishers bow to Amazon, authors may go even further, altogether avoiding topics that may spook the publishers.

Other tech platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter usually provide some definition of hate speech and other content rules, but have acknowledged that they intentionally keep at least part of their policies secret to prevent people from circumventing them. The effect is that users try to guess the boundaries of censorship themselves.

Those who invested great efforts to build their online followings are likely to adopt especially stringent self-censorship, as they have the most to lose. YouTube, for example, bans any content that says the 2020 election result was affected by fraud. The policy seems relatively clear, yet it appears to have nudged YouTube personalities to avoid the topic of election integrity altogether, just to be on the safe side.

Perception of Random Targeting

Another method to induce self-censorship is selective enforcement. During the CCP’s past political campaigns, it would pick targets for persecution seemingly at random. Even the targets wouldn’t necessarily know what exactly had brought the Party’s wrath upon them. In response, people would scramble to make sense of the situation, drawing red lines of self-censorship based on guesswork.

Elements of this method can be seen in various settings in the West.

When Amazon recently banned a book that criticizes transgender ideology, published by Encounter Books in 2018, it didn’t explain why. Instead, Amazon quietly updated its book policies on hate speech. It then left it to the public to connect the dots and label the book as hate speech themselves.

Similarly, other tech platforms commonly refuse to comment on specific cases of censorship or even tell the accused what exactly they did wrong.

This method can also work through changes and exceptions to the rules. The CCP has been notorious for constantly changing its policies. Allies of the revolution of yesterday found themselves enemies of the Party today, but could expect to be called upon to cooperate with the Party tomorrow. Hence came the saying, “Party policy is like the moon, it changes every 15 days.” People have found themselves in a position of constantly trying to figure out how to be in alignment with what the Party is currently saying and even anticipating what the Party might say next and preemptively avoid saying anything that might be deemed problematic in the future.

The tech platforms of today openly acknowledge that their content policies are a work in progress. Over the years, new rules have been repeatedly added and are usually applied retrospectively. Thus, content that was acceptable yesterday may get banned and removed today. More restrictions can be expected tomorrow, or the companies may reverse themselves on some issues.

Rules can also be bent for political convenience. Facebook, for example, considers verbal attacks on people based on their race, sex, or sexual proclivities to be hate speech. But its contracted moderators were informed in 2018 that for a period of time, attacks on straight white males would be exempted as long as they were “intended to raise awareness for Pride/LGBTQ,” an internal memo said.

Guilt by Denial

Another method is using denial or resistance as evidence of guilt.

In current progressive ideologies, denying that one is racist or has “white privilege” counts as a confirmation of the charges. In fact, any resistance to the ideology and its labels is often labeled as “white fragility” or “internalized oppression” and thus illegitimate. Leaving no room for rightful criticism, the ideology discourages debate. Rather than deal with the grief of being pejoratively labeled, many keep their objections to themselves.

Jodi Shaw, a former student support coordinator at Smith College, an elite women’s college, recently left her job over what she described as a “dehumanizing” environment.

In 2018, the liberal arts institution put in place a number of initiatives to fight “systemic racism” at the school. Yet the efforts didn’t sit right with her, Shaw told The Epoch Times in a phone call.

She was instructed to treat people differently based on their race and sex, which in practice meant projecting onto people one’s own stereotypes, she said.

She said it felt fake.

“There’s a script for white people and a script for people who aren’t white. And it felt like you kind of had to stay on the script,” she said.

It was clear to her that there was no room for disagreement or even doubt.

“You just cannot talk about it out loud,” she said. “You can’t express your doubt out loud.”

A staunch liberal, she tried to get along with the program, telling herself it’s just being done “to help.”

When the doubts persevered, she even questioned her own morality.

“Does that mean I’m racist?” she asked herself.

“I think a lot of people on the left have this issue where they feel a little confused. They feel like something doesn’t feel right, but I’m not supposed to think that something’s not right,” she said.

The staffers in her department were “true believers,” she said, but she talked to seven or eight people from other departments who privately shared her concerns.

“Whispers, you know, in hallways and stuff, alone, they’re like, ‘Yeah, this is just like, something’s really messed up about this,’” she said.

Ultimately, she concluded that there was no “inner racist” talking, it was her conscience, and the ideology was just messing with her psyche.

“It’s how this ideology works. It gets into your head, and I think it’s damaging,” she said.

Guilt by Association

Another way to impose self-censorship is extending blame beyond the target to anybody even tenuously associated with it.

Totalitarian regimes have long used this tactic, punishing family, friends, colleagues, supervisors, and other associates of dissidents.

Examples of guilt by association are common today. Media, universities, and other institutions willing to host speakers from another political camp are criticized for “giving a platform” to “hate” or some other pejorative. Anybody uttering a word of support for one of the censored figures can expect to be targeted next.

When Shaw started to talk about her concerns publicly, she found that the Smith staffers who privately agreed with her suddenly became unavailable.

“The fear of guilt by association is so terrifying that people—they won’t even text me,” she said.

That not only induces self-censorship in one’s circle but also further isolates the target.

“You get isolated, and you’re not able to talk it through with somebody else and determine that, yes, indeed there’s something wrong,” Shaw said.

Kari Lake, former news anchor at Fox 10 in Arizona, faced criticism for merely setting up an account on alternative social media sites Parler and Gab. The critics argued that she was guilty by association, since Parler and Gab had been labeled as a favorite platform of “Nazis.”

While the attacks never made Lake question her beliefs, it did prompt her to self-censor, she told The Epoch Times in a phone call.

“I actually find myself not posting stories that are just factual because I’m like: ‘Oh, just posting that, even though it’s true, might anger some people. It might just get the left mad and I don’t want to, you know, kick the hornet’s nest,’” she said.

It’s been especially disheartening for Lake to see censorship endorsed by many fellow journalists.

“They’re just fine with it, and it saddens me,” she said.

She’d like to see more diversity of viewpoints among journalists, estimating that most in the profession lean left. Even the few conservative ones she knows are “very, very closeted about it.”

“The people I know might even act or pitch stories that might appear left-leaning to kind of show people, ‘look, I’m not conservative,’” she said.

A few weeks ago, Lake quit her job.

“I realized, well, I’m part of that. I’m part of this system. I’m part of the media, and if I don’t like it and I can’t do anything to change it, then I need to get out,” she said.

Solution

Censorship in America is peculiar in its form as it’s largely not the doing of the government. It’s not even necessarily the result of government pressure, though that now seems to be underway as well. Rather, it’s based on actors both in and out of government across the American society aligning with an ideology that’s totalitarian at its root.

It’s unlikely that Americans can rely on somebody pushing against the ideology from the top. In fact, the ideology appears to now be endorsed by a majority of the government.

Yet it may be that government measures wouldn’t offer a solution as long as a significant share of the population still subscribes to the ideology or is willing to go along with it.

As Judge Learned Hand said in his 1944 speech “The Spirit of Liberty”:

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”

It appears Americans’ stand is now to rekindle that spark of liberty in the hearts of their peers. Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvabHelp us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

A Customs and Border Protection officer speaks with immigrants at the U.S.–Mexico border in Matamoros, Mexico, on Feb. 25, 2021. (John Moore/Getty Images) US News

By Charlotte Cuthbertson March 9, 2021 Updated: March 11, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

Mexican cartels are getting stronger as the Biden administration weakens security at the border, according to several current and former law enforcement officials.

Most cartel violence occurs in Mexico as different factions fight for territory along the border into the United States. Smuggling drugs and humans is their primary business, and they control the border.

But the cartels are also embedded inside the United States, and indications point to more violence stateside this year, according to Jaeson Jones, a former captain for the Texas Department of Public Safety, where he ran the border security operations center.

“The game has changed now,” Jones told The Epoch Times on March 3. “They don’t fear us. It’s just not like it used to be. And you can’t blame them. I mean, they have no reason to—we’ve done nothing to contain them. They’re just completely out of control.”

Jones said cartels will “absolutely” cause more violence “everywhere, much deeper” into the United States. He said the problem with cross-border crime and cartel violence is that it’s not identified as such in the FBI’s uniform crime data system.

“So when you hear from a lot of people who say, ‘There’s no proof that cross-border violence is occurring,’ that’s wrong. It is. It’s occurring every single day in many, many ways,” Jones said.

He pointed to an example of a double murder in Alabama in 2018 of a 13-year-old autistic girl, who was beheaded, and her grandmother, who was a drug smuggler with reported ties to the Sinaloa cartel.

In 2019, two Border Patrol agents were fired upon from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande while they were patrolling by boat.

“Agents saw four subjects with automatic weapons who shot over 50 rounds at them. The boat was hit several times but no one on board was injured,” said an Aug. 9, 2019, Customs and Border Protection statement.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Jones said, an alert went out to agents that Cartel de Golfo (CDG) intended to kill agents on a boat the next day.

He said CDG is losing the battle for territory in the small city of Miguel Alemán in Mexico, across the river from Roma, Texas. The cartel wanted to blame the shooting on rivals Cartel Del Noreste (CDN), a faction of the Los Zetas, “to cause the Mexican government to come after CDN,” Jones said. “Think how bold that is.”

He believes President Joe Biden, “whether he wants to or not,” will be forced to take action against the cartels because of the fentanyl issue.

Illicit fentanyl coming across the Mexican border is chiefly responsible for fueling the escalating opioid crisis, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Overdose deaths are at record highs in the United States.

“The overdose deaths are not going to get lower,” Jones said. “They’re going to go through the roof this year because of the migration issue. Because as they [border agents] focus on migration at the border, they’re not focusing on [drug] seizures. So you give up one for the other.”

Often, the cartels will send large groups of migrants to cross the border illegally in one area to tie up Border Patrol resources while they smuggle drugs and other people through another area nearby.

Sheriff A.J. Louderback from Jackson County, Texas, said Border Patrol has been apprehending about 1,000 illegal border-crossers every day for the past three weeks in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, mostly in large groups.

“We essentially have an open border today on the southern border of the United States,” Louderback told The Epoch Times on March 5.

The Cartel de Golfo controls the Mexican border into the Rio Grande Valley area in Texas; anyone who wants to cross illegally has to pay the cartel. The lowest price he’s heard is $250 per person, Louderback said.

“So 1,000 people a day … you’re looking at a quarter million dollars a day, coming in and funding the cartel for its future violence, and future enhancement of all things criminal that go along here in Texas and the United States,” he said. “So fundamentally what we’ve done is promote this.”

Jones said the price for crossing has recently skyrocketed to $2,500 per person, or even higher, depending on their country of origin. Many of those who cross don’t have enough money and are then indentured to the cartel once they’re in the United States.

Law Enforcement

The Mexican government has also made moves that hamper U.S. law enforcement, particularly the DEA, inside Mexico.

In mid-December 2020, the Mexican government introduced a law that would require “foreign agents” operating in Mexico to share information with the Mexican government. The foreign agents will also no longer have immunity, and Mexican officials will have to get permission before meeting with a foreign agent and to submit a report afterward.

The DEA has offices in Mexico and has had agents operating there for decades. Homeland Security also operates to disrupt drug and human trafficking routes.

Derek Maltz, former head of the DEA’s special operations division, said the new law will “completely expose” law enforcement agents and their operations.

“And so Mexico is taking full advantage of America during all these turbulent times with the transition of presidents, with the COVID, with the weak immigration policies put forth by Joe Biden’s administration,” Maltz told The Epoch Times on Feb. 24.

“They’re setting it up so the only people that win are the corrupt government officials, the Chinese organized crime groups, and the cartels.

“And there’s no doubt in my mind—based on all my experience, and looking at drug enforcement and immigration-related matters—that the cartels are in a much easier place now to position their manpower throughout America, [and] continue to distribute all these poisonous drugs and pick up the mass amounts of proceeds that have been generated from the business.”

As an escalating number of illegal immigrants enter the country, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced an operation to surge Texas law enforcement personnel to the southern border to help combat drug and human smuggling.

“Texas supports legal immigration but will not be an accomplice to the open border policies that cause, rather than prevent, a humanitarian crisis in our state and endanger the lives of Texans,” Abbott said in a March 6 statement. Follow Charlotte on Twitter: @charlottecuthbo

President Joe Biden signs executives orders in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington on Jan. 26, 2021. (Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images) Censorship & Socialism

By GQ Pan March 9, 2021 Updated: March 9, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

The U.S. Department of Education has reversed a Trump-era decision that declared race-based “affinity groups” at public schools to be discriminatory, according to the New York Post.

After a whistleblower teacher’s complaint from the Evanston-Skokie School District in Illinois, the Trump Administration’s Education Department in 2019 launched an investigation into the district’s practice of dividing students and staff into different groups based on their race and conducting activities allegedly aimed at helping address discrimination and “white privilege.”

According to documents obtained by the NY Post, the practices carried out in the Chicago-area school district were found to be in violation of Title VI, the federal law prohibiting race-based discrimination in education. The practices deemed discriminatory by the Trump administration included, among many others, “racially exclusive affinity groups” that separated students, parents, and community members by race, a “Colorism Privilege Walk” that asked students to move forward or back according to racial privileges they supposedly have or lack, and a policy that explicitly directed staffers to take into account a student’s race when taking disciplinary actions.

The whistleblower told the NY Post that she received a call on Jan. 6 from Carol Ashley, the enforcement director for the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), who told her that the OCR had issued a letter of finding that the district was engaging in discriminatory behavior.

However, on Jan. 22, two days after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, the teacher received another call from Ashley, informing her that the findings and any further actions have been indefinitely suspended as part of the new administration’s effort to promote “racial equity” in schools.

The suspension of the OCR investigation was also confirmed by Superintendent Devon Horton of the Evanston-Skokie district, who told the NY Post that “last month, the proceedings were suspended by OCR pending its reconsideration of the case in light of the executive orders on racial equity issued by President Biden.”

In the executive order signed on his first day in White House, Biden vowed to embed racial equity, rather than equal opportunity, into his administration.

“Equal opportunity is the fundamental promise of America. But systemic racism and discrimination in our economy, laws, and institutions have put the promise of America out of reach for too many families of color,” the order reads, adding that the Biden administration will take “bold and ambitious steps” to root out “inequity” from the economy and expand opportunities for “communities of color and other underserved Americans.”

Equity is a concept tied to the Marxist “critical theory,” which slices up society into identity groups based on race, gender, sexual proclivities, and other factors, while dividing the groups into oppressed and oppressors, similar to how Marxism labels people as oppressors or the oppressed based on class. In political parlance, equity commonly refers to equality of outcome, rather than equal treatment.

The OCR did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

Petr Svab contributed to this report.Help us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

Published Mar 11, 2021 06:59 am

Congressman Tom McClintock View Photo

Washington, DC — On a partisan line vote, the US House approved the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package that includes $1,400 checks coming to many Americans.

Republican Congressman Tom McClintock, who represents the Mother Lode, spoke out in opposition on the US House floor.

He stated, “This is the most left-wing bill ever passed by the Congress. But beware, there is no such thing as free money. All of it must be borrowed from the same capital pool that would otherwise be available as loans to consumers, homebuyers and small businesses. And it will be repaid entirely from your future earnings in the years ahead.”

McClintock argues that he prefers ending all of the lockdown measures instead of passing the stimulus package. President Joe Biden will sign the measure after it gained approval in both the House and Senate. The House vote was 220 to 211, with all Republicans in opposition, and all but one Democrat voting in favor. Other aspects of the bill include $350-billion in aid for state and local governments, $130-billion for k-12 schools and $14-billion for vaccine distribution.

Written by BJ Hansen.

By Andrew Chen March 10, 2021 Updated: March 10, 2021

A first-of-its-kind study has revealed that academia in Canada, the United States, and the UK are suppressing and punishing conservative scholars and students for their ideas and speech, which is increasingly encroaching on their academic freedom.

The report (pdf) was conducted by the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology (CSPI), which said its analysis, supported by large-scale survey data, is able to provide scientific evidences to “campus illiberalism.”

“A significant portion of academics discriminate against conservatives in hiring, promotion, grants, and publications,” wrote Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and author of the CSPI report.

Kaufmann said this study is unique because its analysis reveals the nature and extent of the punishment and political discrimination against conservative academics “from the perspectives of both perpetrators and victims.”

The report noted that while progressive critics have brushed off high profile cases of discrimination and mob violence as exceptions of the largely intact academic freedom,

right-leaning academics are experiencing a high level of “institutional authoritarianism” and peer pressure in all three Anglophone countries.

Right-leaning scholars are faced with two types of threats to academic freedom, which is dichotomized in the report as hard and soft authoritarianism, according to the report.

Hard Authoritarianism

“Hard authoritarianism” entails no-platforming, dismissal campaigns, social media mob attacks, formal complaints, and disciplinary action, Kaufmann says. He added that only a small “subgroup of illiberal, far-left activist staff and students” are perpetrators of such actions.

Given five scenarios in which a faculty member is found to support a conservative idea—such as traditional parenthood and restricted immigration—nearly 60 percent of Canadian respondents would favor dismissing the staff member.

The report found that “progressive authoritarianism” is likely to get worse in coming years, as younger academics and PhD students are much more willing to support ousting controversial scholars from their posts.

Soft Authoritarianism

This is a more subtle yet insidious form of punishing the conservatives and dissidents of the liberal ways, Kaufmann says. The victims are discriminated in career opportunities such as hiring, promotion, grant application, publication, and social inclusion.

Four out of 10 U.S. and Canadian academics would not hire a supporter of the former U.S. President Donald Trump.

In the field of social sciences and humanities, over nine in 10 pro-Trump academics say they would feel “uncomfortable” revealing their political view to a colleague. Similarly, eight in 10 pro-Brexit academics are worried about “coming out.”

In the United States, over a third of conservative academics and PhD students have been threatened with disciplinary action for their political views, and 70 percent have experienced a “hostile departmental climate” for their political inclination, the report states. The study says a hostile climate could deter conservative students from pursuing a career in the academia after graduation.

The report found that conservative academics are savvy about the structural barriers towering over them, and more than half of these minorities in the three countries have admitted of self-censoring in research and teaching.

Kaufmann said governments can address the problem by proactively enforcing the law and sanction universities that repeatedly encroach on individuals’ academic freedom. Another option is to open up means for plaintiffs to appeal universities to a regulatory ombudsman.

The CSPI was formed in 2020 to address two major political problems within academic research. The first is the political bias that affects issues ranging from the framing of research questions to employment in the field. It also addresses the growing replication crisis, particularly in psychology researches.Help us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

This file photo shows a hole cut into Southern California’s border fence with Mexico on March 3, 2021. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection via AP) Executive Branch

By Masooma Haq March 10, 2021 Updated: March 10, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

The Biden administration’s southwestern border coordinator, Roberta Jacobson, told reporters during a White House briefing Wednesday that the administration’s “more humane” immigration policies may be driving the migrant surge at the southern border and encouraging smugglers.

“Surges tend to respond to hope, and there was a significant hope for a more humane policy after four years of pent up demand,” she told reporters.

The former ambassador to Mexico said “the idea that a more humane policy would be in place” under Biden may have driven a surge in people choosing to arrive at the southern border in an “irregular fashion,” while blaming human smugglers for promoting “disinformation” about the law changes and urging people not to listen to them.

“We’re going to try our best to do everything we can at each end of this, in the United States but especially in Central America and Mexico, to ensure we have safe, orderly, and legal migration,” she said.

Both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, during their presidential campaigns, emphasized reversing the Trump-era immigration policies and making it easier for people needing protection to apply and get asylum in the United States.

Referring to former President Donald Trump’s immigration message, she said, “I think it’s really important to understand that you can’t and shouldn’t say, in this administration’s opinion, that the only way to message, ‘Do not come in an irregular fashion,’ is to act as cruelly as you possibly can, separate children from their parents, return people to places like migrant camp and Matamoros for up to two plus years at a time and that’s the only way that you can get your message across.”

Jacobson said that Biden’s team has been working to reform the nation’s immigration policies since arriving in the White House to what it says will be “a more humane and efficient system.” But she said it will take time.

“We are trying to walk and chew gum at the same time. We are trying to convey to everyone in the region that we will have legal processes in the future … But at the same time, you cannot come through irregular means. It’s dangerous and the majority of people will be sent out of the United States because that is the truth of it,” she said. “We want to be honest with people. And so we are trying to send both messages and smugglers are only trying to send one message. So we’re relying on every means we can to get that message out there.”

“The border is not open,” Jacobson said in Spanish and in English.

She added that Biden’s vision is to fix the U.S. system as well as address “the hopes and the dreams of these migrants in their home country.”

The administration is requesting $4 billion from Congress to mitigate immigration challenges, with a focus on providing aid to the home countries from which migrants are coming.

However, Jacobson admitted that the United States doesn’t have magical leverage over Northern Triangle countries to ensure that aid is being used to address issues like “lack of good governance, economic opportunity, and security issues or violence.”

She said Biden will work to get commitments from regional leaders, charities, and NGO organizations to address local corruption and transparency issues before any money is changed hands.

“We can encourage them. We can help support them with resources, both technical assistance and funding, but we can’t make those changes. The changes have to come in the Northern Triangle countries,” she said.

Jacobson also confirmed that the administration is planning to restart the Central American Minors program, allowing minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to apply for refugee settlement in the United States from their home countries.

According to multiple reports, the Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that the number of migrant children in custody along the southern border is currently more than 3,250—more than triple the number from two weeks ago. Of those children, more than 1,360 have been staying at holding cells longer than the three days allowed by law.

In February, Border Patrol apprehended 100,441 illegal border crossers along the southern border, according to Customs and Border Protection.Help us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

WHY ARE AMERICANS NOW BEING TREATED LIKE MUSHROOMS, ie; KEPT IN THE DARK AND FED STEAMING SHIT? WHO IS ILLEGALLY RIGGING OUR ELECTIONS TO INSURE A “ONE PARTY RULE” TO REPLACE OUR DEMOCRACY?

STILL SHOTS FROM NEW VIDEO BY “PATRIOTIC PILLOW GUY”!

By Mark Truppner Published Mar 9, 2021 06:00 am

Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, recently spoke on the US House Floor.

McCarthy was Tuesday’s KVML “Newsmaker of the Day”. Here are his words:

“Madam Speaker — I am about to say something the American people won’t want to hear.

The Swamp is back.

Every day since January 20, Democrats have sided with their special interest allies and ignored the real needs of the American people.

The result is the bill before us today. Or should I say tomorrow. Congress won’t actually vote on this bill until 2 AM, Saturday.

Why? Because Democrats are so embarrassed by all the non-COVID waste in this bill that they are jamming it through in the dead of night.

We ran the numbers — the amount of money that actually goes to defeating the virus is less than 9 percent.

Less than 9 percent!

So don’t call it a rescue bill. Don’t call it a relief bill. Call it the Pelosi Payoff.

If you’re a friend of the Speaker, you do pretty well under this bill. But for the American people, it’s a loser.

Consider Medicare. Tonight, CBO confirmed that this bill would cause $36 billion in cuts to Medicare starting next year.

If you vote for this bill, I want you to go back to your district, look seniors in the eye, and tell them why you voted to cut their health benefits.

Or consider the blue state bailout. This bill calls for states and local governments to receive $350 billion dollars. Most states are not in financial distress. Nearly half saw an increase in revenue last year. And some, including my home state of California, actually have a budget surplus.

But none of that money is tied to reopening.

Or consider elite institutions — Harvard and others. This bill calls for them to receive hundreds of millions of dollars. But Harvard already has a $40 billion endowment.

Compare that to K-12 education. This bill allocates only $6 billion to help reopen American schools in FY 2021. More than two-thirds of the education funding would not be spent until 2023 or later.

Almost every one of this bill’s 592 pages includes a liberal pipedream that predates the pandemic.

Check the fine print.

On page 97, it hands out health care subsidies to illegal immigrants.

On page 347, it fast-tracks $1.5 billion to Amtrak, which hasn’t even spent the $1 billion from the last package.

On page 306, it gives federal employees up to an extra $21,000 to help cope with virtual schooling.

But if you are one of the millions of parents outside of Washington who are struggling through school closures — including the million mothers who had to quit their jobs to take care of kids home from school — you are ignored.

And on pages 358, it funnels $140 million for a subway tunnel near Speaker Pelosi’s district.

When you add it all up, the size of this payoff is jaw dropping: $1.9 trillion in new spending.

It is the single most expensive spending bill ever.

But will it help people get back to work? No.

Will it help students get back in the classroom immediately? No.

Will it help get vaccines to those who want it? No.

It doesn’t spend a third of the entire cost of the bill for another two years — undermining the claim that this bill is ‘urgent.’

It doesn’t have any guardrails to protect against fraud — which has already cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, including in California.

It just throws out more money without accountability — even though we have over one trillion dollars in unspent funds from the last bill.

President Biden promised unity, but Democrats are delivering one-party rule.

“Madam Speaker — Based on the facts, the Democrats’ spending bill is too costly, too corrupt, and too liberal for the country.

To my colleagues who say this bill is bold, I say it is bloated.

To those who say it is urgent, I say it is unfocused.

To those who say it is popular, I say it is entirely partisan and has the wrong priorities.

Republicans will support whatever is needed to get Americans back to work, back to school, and back to health. After 12 months of struggling, suffering, and sacrificing, that’s what Americans want, what they need, and what they deserve.

That’s why, Republicans will introduce a Motion to Recommit to bolster the resources families can access to help children cope with the emotional stress of school closures.

Our proposal would shift $140 million from Speaker Pelosi’s subway to grants that would be used for mental health services for kids.

It puts students first, not the Swamp.

Democrats have conveniently ignored the education and mental health crisis affecting our children. But failing to address it is unacceptable.

Families deserve answers. Tonight, they will finally get them.

Our colleagues are going to go on the record and say whether they support a $140 million subway or grants for kids’ mental health.

I yield back.”

The “Newsmaker of the Day” is heard every weekday morning at 6:45, 7:45 and 8:45 on AM 1450 and FM 102.7 KVML.

Written by Mark Truppner.

Impeachment Manager Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) speaks on the second day of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Feb. 10, 2021. (congress.gov via Getty Images) Democrats

By Tom Ozimek March 5, 2021 Updated: March 5, 2021 biggersmallerPrint

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), the Democrat lawmaker embroiled in a Chinese spy saga who served as a House manager in former President Donald Trump’s impeachment, filed a lawsuit Friday against Trump and others in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol incident.

Swalwell, who has been dogged by the story that he was targeted by an alleged Chinese spy and now faces Republican challenges to his suitability to continue serving on a House homeland security committee, filed the lawsuit against the former president, his son, a lawyer, and a Republican congressman whose actions Swalwell claims spurred a “violent mob” to attack the Capitol.

The suit (pdf), filed in federal court in Washington, makes allegations under eight counts, including: conspiracy to violate civil rights, negligence, incitement to riot, disorderly conduct and terrorism, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Swalwell claims that Trump, his son Donald Jr., former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), made “false and incendiary allegations of fraud and theft, and in direct response to the Defendant’s express calls for violence at the rally, a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol.”

In a statement, Swalwell said all four defendants “assembled, inflamed and incited the mob, and as such are wholly responsible for the injury and destruction that followed.”

The lawsuit basically makes the case that both Trumps, Giuliani, and Brooks spread claims of election fraud and by so doing they helped to rile up thousands of people who breached the Capitol.

Trump’s spokesman Jason Miller responded to the suit, labeling it a “witch hunt” and calling Swalwell a “low-life” with “no credibility.”

“Now, after failing miserably with two impeachment hoaxes,” Swalwell is attacking “our greatest President with yet another witch hunt,” Miller said. “It’s a disgrace that a compromised Member of Congress like Swalwell still sits on the House Intelligence Committee.”

Harmeet K. Dhillon, an attorney who is a partner at a law firm with former Trump lawyer Ron Coleman, commented on Swalwell’s suit, calling it “patently frivolous.”

“Can we citizens sue Swalwell for conspiring with a Chinese spy? I mean it’s at least negligent, right? Subverts our democracy, etc. The possibilities are endless,” she wrote in a tweet.

A report by Axios on Dec. 7 claimed that the alleged Chinese spy, Christine Fang, built up an extensive network of contacts with up-and-coming politicians in the San Francisco Bay Area, including Swalwell. The report said Swalwell cut ties with her after investigators gave him a “defensive briefing,” and that he provided information about her to the FBI.

Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN that he didn’t do anything wrong and accused Republicans of trying to weaponize the Axios report.

“I was told about this individual and I offered to help,” he told CNN. “All I did was cooperate, and the FBI said that.”

But national security concerns have persisted, given Swalwell’s membership on the House committee, whose members have access to sensitive classified information.

“This breach of our national security is especially concerning,” wrote more than a dozen House Republicans, in a Feb. 23 letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

They called on Wray to brief the Homeland Security panel about “Rep. Swalwell’s relationship with Fang and any potential exposure of classified information” so that its members can consider whether to limit Swalwell’s future access to classified information.

Swalwell’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times after the Axios report was published.

Meanwhile, in his suit against Trump and others, Swalwell seeks relief in the form of “actual money damages” and “punitive damages” in amounts to be determined at trial, along with coverage of his attorney fees.

Swalwell also wants the court to order Trump to have to notify him in writing a week ahead of any planned rally to give him time potentially to try and block it “to prevent further violence or disruption to the proper functioning of the federal government.”

The Democrat lawmaker is demanding a trial by jury. Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOMHelp us spread the truth. Share this article with your friends.

President Joe Biden speaks in the State Dining Room of the White House on March 2, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images) China-US News

By Frank Fang March 4, 2021 Updated: March 4, 2021

The Biden administration’s approach to China as articulated in a speech by Secretary of State Antony Blinken on March 3 was heavy on rhetoric but light on substance, according to a foreign policy expert.

Blinken called China the “biggest geopolitical test of the 21st century, while also stating that the U.S. relationship with Beijing will be “competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be, and adversarial when it must be.”

“The common denominator is the need to engage China from a position of strength,” Blinken added.

James Jay Carafano, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at Washington-based think tank Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times that the speech was “the same old kind of empty rhetoric.”

He particularly criticized Blinken’s call for cooperation with China on certain issues.

“All the key vital issues that we have with China, we are on the opposite sides on all of them. So where are we going to cooperate?” Carafano said.

Carafano added that the concept of selective cooperation with China is a “failed decade-old construct.”

“It’s literally like Paul McCartney saying we’re gonna get the band back together and then somebody says, ‘Paul, you do know that two of the members are dead right’,” Carafano said.

For decades, U.S. administrations have engaged with the Chinese regime in the hopes that greater trade and investment links would lead to more democracy in the communist country. The Trump administration recognized this as a failed concept, and rewrote the United States’ approach to focus on confronting the regime over the threats it poses to national security, economic prosperity, and freedom.

Blinken’s words on working with China were reiterated in an interim national security strategic guidance issued by the Biden administration on Wednesday.

“We will welcome the Chinese government’s cooperation on issues such as climate change, global health security, arms control, and nonproliferation where our national fates are intertwined,” according to the guidance.

Gordon Chang, author of “The Coming Collapse of China” told The Epoch Times last month that it would not be possible for the United States to cooperate with the regime due to the conditions it imposes.

“The Communist Party has been very clear. They say that if you don’t cooperate with us on everything, we’re not going to cooperate on anything,” Chang said.

Critics have argued that the Biden administration has thus far announced policies that have benefited Beijing, including rejoining the Paris Climate accord, re-engaging with the United Nations Human Rights Council, rejoining the World Health Organization, and revoking a Trump-era rule relating to Beijing-funded Confucius Institutes.

Carafano said overall Blinken’s speech did not convey a coherent strategy.

“My assessment is: These guys came in without a plan. They don’t have a plan for China. They don’t have a plan for the Middle East. They don’t have a plan for Russia,” he said.

“We’re not seeing a clear policy of how you deal with great power competition of the 21st century.”

With reporting by Zachary Stieber. Cathy He also contributed to this report.